Advice on weaponry

Uwe said:

So that when evil shows up, we can deal with it ourselves if we have to, rather than depending on someone a government agent with a gun, who may or may not show up in a timely manner, and may or may not be willing to put themselves in harm's way, like the damn cowards at Uvalde:

"Three minutes after the subject entered the west building, there was a sufficient number of armed officers wearing body armor to isolate, distract, and neutralize the subject." Three minutes — just 180 seconds later — and officers were ready to go take down the shooter, prevent him from shooting any other students, and deliver aid to those who may have already been wounded. But they didn't.
....
"One hour, 14 minutes, and 8 seconds — that's how long the children waited, and the teachers waited, in room 111 to be rescued,"

Click to expand...

Arrhhh yes.......... the Paxton suggestion, again; the solution to the Uvalde massacre is to turn Texas (all?) infant education facilities into fortified armories (arm teachers/administrators with the possible further extension to arm the children, themselves)!

What an thoroughly loathsome suggestion - it dishonors the worth of the lives of the beautiful children that didn't go home on that fateful day and it's a telling example of the quality of thinking by Texas officials in general and by the Texas Attorney General in particular!!

I know that you are an experienced diagnostic practitioner and that in the pursuit of solving problems - you know full well the advantages of solutions that target the cause of a fault, rather than the effect of the fault.

The Paxton style suggestion (arm the populous) focuses on the latter - and arguably it makes the former an even greater problem!! But it is perfectly aligned with the NRA mantra

If America has a problem with response times of police - then deal with that problem (as a distinct problem on it's own). Don't use the issue of response time as a despicable license to arm citizens thereby making the problem of gun violence in the community even larger!!

The stunningly obvious conclusion of Paxton based suggestions is that promoting a reliance on vigilantes (pun intended) in the community won't solve Police response times and most certainly, it won't make the problem of gun violence any better!

But Paxton is good for American gun manufacturers and for NRA membership (and it does provide a pitiful excuse for the millions of Americans who astonishingly remain silent)

Don

PS: Plus-Under the Paxton solution and given America's litigious culture, what is the legal status of a citizen (i.e. a properly motivated vigilante) who shoots another American on the basis of a suspicion that he was a psychopath and/or drug addict?

I guess police have some protections under law if they do the same - but a citizen acting as a vigilante (even for the best of reasons) must stand alone, legally-unprotected-I would think. Under what circumstances is the shooting allowable - remembering that the alleged psychopath who is wielding a gun may have a permit?

The Paxton solution must get very messy in real life - I suspect?

Uwe said:

I agree that any gun is better than no gun, but much depends on the number of attackers and how determined (or drugged up) they are. If they do not back down knowing that their intended victim has a gun, then the gun needs to have sufficient firepower to stop the attack. The woman in the picture appears to have a break-action, breech-loading shotgun. It takes time to reload after firing just one shot (or at most two, if it's a double-barrel). Better than nothing? Sure, but less than optimal as a defensive weapon.

Click to expand...

Yes, it all depends on who, how many and how determined the attackers are. Maybe it's only one unarmed guy with no guns at all, relying on his own physical strength, as in the Glock ad video, or maybe it's a group of very determined and well armed criminals who have a specific valuable target (maybe the woman at the farm was formerly a member of a drug cartel and betrayed the gang, who knows?), it all depends on how probable each scenario is. That's why I think a shotgun with a pump action or semi-auto would do the job. I suppose, in most cases, the attackers will avoid engaging in a real shooting and look for another target if they can do so. Against multiple armed attackers, a single person would stand no chance whatever weapons she has (well, maybe she has a Gatling and a few hand grenades at home...), but how likely it is to happen?

Uwe said:

As for you comment regarding the shotgun: Have you fired a 12-gauge and checked the size of the pattern at various distances? The notion that one doesn't need to aim a shotgun is BS.

Click to expand...

That reminded me of my times in the Police Academy, training with the 12-gauge shotgun. Most fellow cops (including the ladies) could fire good shots with minimal aiming at short distance, which is the range where statistically most of the gunfights occur in real life. Accuracy does decrease with distance, but I doubt most people would have so much more space in a home than a typical gunfight range.

DV52 said:

huh? I don't understand your logic.

First, how in God's name does the deterrent effect of a vulnerable family on a remote farm owning a rifle (from the dreaded psychopath) work "even without [the gun] being seen"?

Under this bizarre logic, how does the dreaded psychopath know which vulnerable Mrs and child to target when he doesn't know who owns a gun - because it's unseen?

Second: If you now agree that the only way that alleged deterrent can work is to ensure that the dreaded psychopath actually sights the weapon - are you now proposing that the vulnerable Mrs on the remote farm MUST carry the weapon AT ALL TIMES regardless of whether she is inside/outside the house for effective protection?

Click to expand...

There is no hidden or occult logic in my reasoning, I said guns may have a dissuading effect even without being seen in some cases, but of course not ALL cases. In the case of the Mrs and child it may work if the attacker first gets info about his target and thinks twice when he knows the victim has a gun, of if he actually sights the weapon, of if the victim shoots toward him (even missing), or if she actually hits the target. Or any of these may not work! The point is having some chance is better than having no chance.

DV52 said:

Third: It stands to reason that the dreaded psychopath doesn't stop being a psychopath simply because gun ownership increases - I assume that you agree that these individuals will still seek to satisfy his deranged urges by attacking mothers and their children in remote American communities.

Click to expand...

It seems, Don, that you are assuming that most, if not all, of the crimes are commited by dreaded psychopaths (and, yes, I know you added drug addicts to the list), while it's not the case. I don't know how frequent is psychopathy in Australia or America, but I doubt is much different from the rest of the world. Most crimes against ordinary, non criminally involved people are commited by rational individuals who plan to pratice a robbery or sexual aggression, and they do weigh the risks when choosing their targets. Nobody plans to rob an armored truck or a bank using a small handgun. Actually, even the school shooting psychopaths do choose their targets. How many psychopaths would choose a police station, a military facility or a shooting range? Instead they choose schools, supermarkets, night clubs, anywhere they don't expect to find resistance.

DV52 said:

So, assuming that your hypothesis is correct (which is stretching a very long bow indeed) - doesn't it logically follow that the effectiveness of the deterrent reduces as the number of vulnerable farm wives who own guns increases? And extending this logical conclusion, doesn't it sunsequently follow that if ALL mothers on remote properties own weapons, the deterrent effect drops to zero (because the dreaded psychopaths still need to get their jollies)??

What nonsense!!

Aslo, the underlying logic that you attempt to make that because Police carry guns, therefore every member in the community should also carry guns - is unbelievable!! If every member in the community is as equally armed as Police - what is the point of arming the police the same? You need to escalate police weaponry, surely in this case? And then citizen weaponary needs to escale? Is this really your answer to solving the problem of gun violence in the community??

Don

Click to expand...

Not really. What I said is anti-gun propaganda would make you believe guns are only effective when the gun is fired and kills someone, which is not true. I don't buy the pro-gun propaganda, which says crime would decrease if everybody had guns, either. As I mentioned in a previous post I don't believe the reversal of gun restrictions (and consequent increase in gun ownership) in my country was necessarily the main cause of the reduction in homicides. I just think gun ownership should be allowed as a right (not as a crime fighting policy), and legislators should focus on the real causes of violence.

DV52 said:

We have (or at lest I have) been debating the matter of gun violence in America and possible ways of addressing the problem.

Click to expand...

Until you're willing to explain why "gun violence" is any more abhorrent than any other kind of violence, there's no debate.

Did you know that the worst school massacre in the USA occurred in 1927 and it was not "gun violence".

Now let me be clear: The topic of this thread is, "Advice on weaponry". My advice is: Get whatever weaponry you can and feel comfortable with, and become proficient with it. Or don't, and abdicate responsibility for your own safety and those you love to your nanny-state masters, and don't fuss too much when they tell you it's time to go to some camp -- for everyone's safety, of course. What isn't welcome in this thread is pushing a "gun control" agenda, particularly not by those you in far-flung countries on whom what we do in these United States has no effect whatsoever.

-Uwe-

Uwe said:

Now let me be clear: The topic of this thread is, "Advice on weaponry"......................What isn't welcome in this thread is pushing a "gun control" agenda, particularly not by those you in far-flung countries on whom what we do in these United States has no effect whatsoever.

Click to expand...

What - have you asked yourself why these posts are in the "Advice on weaponry" thread????? And, are you aware why those particular caveats were NOT made abundantly clear by the administrator from the time that he made the decision to do the following:

Uwe said:

I've moved a number of the posts above here from the "It was funny to me" thread.

-Uwe-

Click to expand...

I had assumed that the move (which you made) was simply a change in tread subject - I was not aware that the movement carried with it other restrictions aimed particularly at "those [of] you in far-flung countries".

How in God's name were Australians meant to understand the special restrictions that apply to them in this thread? Or that any debate about gun control - which was clearly evident in the text of our posts that you (yes, YOU) transferred to this thread - was "nicht erlaubt"?

Again, how were we meant to understand these special restrictions that apply no where else in this forum EXCEPT in the thread where you (yes, YOU) transferred our posts? What am I missing?

Had I been able to read your mind and understood these (Australia centric?) restrictions - of course compliance would have occurred. If you wanted to shut-down ALL discussion about gun control - then of course, your prerogative - but for the love of God, do it openly and no need to transfer our posts to this thread as some kind of weird mechanism to this end!! What am I missing?

Without any mention of your caveats at the time you (yes, YOU) transferred our posts to this thread - the rules that I've been working with are these:

"This being a bar, you can talk about pretty much anything in here. Still, I won't put up with fights, and if you piss me off, I'll throw you out of my bar. "

I've tried in ALL my replies to be respectful and it's bleedingly obvious that I'm a foreigner in the said "far-flung country". I guess I found the definition of "piss me off"!!

Entirely your right to deal with someone who holds a different view in this very inelegant way!! But be aware (please) that my convictions about gun violence in any country are not caward by the manner of my treatment under your newly exposed rules here.

If your displeasure extends further than Uwe's Bar - please advise (clarity is important).

Don.
PS: just so we are clear and before you decide my wider status in this forum - I will respect any person (of ANY country) whose force of intellect in creating cogent argument is compelling - even if their view is different to mine. However, contriving an outcome to an important question through exercise of sheer power - is demeaning to us both and it's distasteful IMO

If this exercise serves as a warning to other foreigners (in far flung countries) that likewise might not hold your views, then I will consider that it has had some advantage

As an interested observer it seems to me that while this debate is good mannered and informative, it's ultimately pointless since the opinions are almost polar opposites?

So maybe it's time to agree to disagree?

@PetrolDave : Thank you for your sage suggestion (I value the underlying motive for your response)

Truth is that whilst I might not be the brightest penny in the purse, I was under no illusion that any debate could ever change the views of the man who created a thread in a VCDS forum called "Advice on weaponry"!

And whilst I would never presume to talk for said man, I suspect that he had similar views about the prospect of doing the same in my case.

Of what value is a thread like "Uwe's bar" if the only topics of discussion that are allowed are those where everyone agrees with Uwe - or where points of views are so fragile that they are easily changed. How utterly boring and pointless would a discussion facility with those rules be?

That's not the point; it's not the fact that we both have strongly-held, different points of view that is at issue here.

To be brutally frank, the issue here is the manner in which a seemingly valid debate which was allowed to continue was then summarily shut-down ("censored" is too strong a word). Of course, I have no problem with Uwe's right to exercise his absolute power - it says so in the thread rules!

So again bluntly (lest I was not sufficiently clear) - it ain't our polar opposite views, or the power to shut-down debate that is at issue - it's the way that the power was wielded and specifically, the perfunctory etiquette which I do not accept to be Uwe's right as a part of his absolute power!!

A polite "I will not allow anyone from Australia to discuss gun control in America on this forum" would have sufficed quite nicely! And an even better etiquette would have been for Uwe to make that pronouncement before he transferred our posts to the "Advice on weaponry" thread and before we (including Uwe, himself) continued discussion on that very topic in the new thread.

Yes, Uwe is the Benevolent Dictator and I respect that role - but I will not be bullied (by anyone). Ive seen far too many examples in my long years where those with power bludgeon an advantage -because they can. So, I will always call-out such behavior because I expect/demand better from those that have more power (even in a mundane facility like a forum)

As I have written in the past, "words are important" and these types of behaviors always expose revealing insights (behavior is the true mirror of personality), so a valuable lesson for all who read these posts - I think

That said, let's put this matter in perspective!! We are talking here about an appalling way to stop discussion on a forum. In the scheme of life, this is an infinitesimally insignificant event and most certainly in my life, I have been appalled by behaviors on much more important issues!!

But again, thank you for your words and for the motives behind your response (and also thanks @Quintus Rotam for liking Dave's post) - it was a kind and a courageous gesture from both of you!!

Don

@Uwe: entirely your call - but I'm still waiting to understand my wider status on this forum (I find this entire situation bizarre beyond logic) - please?

Am I out of Uwe's Bar, out of Advice on weaponry thread, out of the forum, or am I uniquely prohibited as a PROUD Australian from continuing the discussion on American gun control?

And for the benefit of others, if the last option -what does "far flung" mean; is it the fact of my proud Australian citizenship that is important here, or does the same prohibition apply to any other nationality (except Americans, of course)?

DV52 said:

To be brutally frank, the issue here is manner in which a seemingly valid debate which was allowed to continue was summarily shut-down ("censored" is too strong a word).

Click to expand...

@DV52 If you think that I, as no more than a private VCDS owner, have the power to shut down ANY debate on here then you are seriously mistaken.

I was merely suggesting that this debate has reached such a polarised state that it is no longer of benefit to the wider community since there is no meeting of minds and has, in my opinion, become no better than an internet version of two people shouting AT each other not listening TO each other.

That is all I'm going to say on the subject, and am disappointed that your emotions have led you to conclude that censorship is taking place.

@PetrolDave: hmmm........ you have entirely misunderstood - of course you don't have "the power to shut down ANY debate"!!

You are a private VCDS owner - like me. None of us mere mortals have the power to shut down ANY debate.

My explanation was not about you - my explanation was to you

Why in God's name would your read my words as blaming you? Other than your generosity in responding, @PetrolDave has played no part in the ANY of this matter!

There is only person on this forum that has the power to shutdown ANY debate.

This is getting more and more bizarre !!

Don

PS: And of course "emotions" are involved - I am passionate about my principles

It's like Junetwentysomethingth for those of us in "may issue" states!!!!!

U.S. Supreme Court expands gun rights, strikes down New York law

Per Justice Clarence Thomas: "We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need. That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant's right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense."

I'm so happy that I almost feel like going outside and popping off 7 rounds in the back yard to celebrate! (Just kidding.)

DV52 said:

I had assumed that the move (which you made)

Click to expand...

... before you started pushing a obvious agenda.

DV52 said:

Am I out of Uwe's Bar, out of Advice on weaponry thread, out of the forum, or am I uniquely prohibited as a PROUD Australian from continuing the discussion on American gun control?

Click to expand...

If you were out of the Bar, or out of the forum, you would know it. But since you are clearly a hoplophobe and not actually interested in Advice on Weaponry, you're done in this thread.

-Uwe-

I had to look it up - hoplophobic = irrational fear of guns

What is a rational fear of guns called

cheers
Rohan

See..... you teach me a new word and get me trying to understand rational versus irrational fears as they relate to this discussion


worth reading if your into a rational understanding of the issues

cheers
Rohan

RGH0 said:

What is a rational fear of guns called

Click to expand...

There is no such thing. Guns are inanimate objects that can do no harm by themselves.

-Uwe-

In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (2008), the Court concluded that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep a handgun in the home for self-defense. Heller found that the Amendment codified a preexisting right and that this right was regarded at the time of the Amendment’s adoption as rooted in “‘the natural right of resistance and self-preservation.’” Id., at 594. “[T]he inherent right of self-defense,” Heller explained, is “central to the Second Amendment right.” Id., at 628. Although Heller concerned the possession of a handgun in the home, the key point that we decided was that “the people,” not just members of the “militia,” have the right to use a firearm to defend themselves. And because many people face a serious risk of lethal violence when they venture outside their homes, the Second Amendment was understood at the time of adoption to apply under those circumstances.
-- Justice Samuel Alito concurring with the majority in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

Guns don't scare me, people do.

Me thinks that yesterday's ruling will be quickly forgotten after today's [not-surprising] Supreme Court bombshell.

Me also thinks that it is a good time to break out the EEZOX and get ready for the riots to start.....

Me thinks that it is going to be a good weekend to go out shopping for a new jumbo flatscreen TV.

I have confirmed reports that there are already posters going up in Washington, DC, calling for a "night of rage" and literally calling for riots. Gotta laugh at the irony of donkey-party cities being burned down by donkey-party voters, in donkey-party states where abortion will still be legal. At least they picked the correct mascot for their party!

This riot news report brought to you by EEZOX. Get yours today.....

The continued expansion of the second amendment rights by the US court in recent years does not surprise me but it does sadden me.

Uwe - I was trained in my youth on the use of a range of weapons including machine guns and that taught me to respect them and also instilled in me a rational fear of their destructive power. Its like high voltage electricity, once you understand its risks, if you do fear it, then dont mess with it

RGH0 said:

Its like high voltage electricity, once you understand its risks, if you do fear it, then dont mess with it

Click to expand...

It is why I want nothing to do with EV’s, you can spill petrol and get away with it, you can’t “spill” 400 volts without consequences. Currently () three phase electrical apparatus is carefully regulated () in the UK, but as it proliferates into private cars it will get messed around with and bodged so people WILL die, horribly.